Monday, September 26, 2011

Russell and Jeff in the self-described "awesome episode." One theist caller gets 20 minutes, while another gets summarily dumped after his opening statement. A new study shows that belief in God is linked with intuitive thinking, or to put it another way, preferring to choose the answer that sounds good over thinking carefully about what's probably correct. Be there!

Also, as I mentioned on the show, Lynnea and I have plans to hang out in a bar with Orlando-based fans on a weeknight in November. Check out this page for planning if you're nearby.

I do think it (dropping the quack) was the proper course of action - both in that they potentially gave the person some insight into what's required for discussions with other sentient life, and in that it would have been a colossal waste of time (more than usual for theists).

It'd be like two teams coming to a field to play soccer, and one of the teams declaring that they're not going to play by the rules - that they don't have to get the soccer ball into the opposing team's net to score points, and that there's no way for the other team to score any points against them.

I'm not sure how long it would be entertaining to watch two different teams trying to play two different games in the same place at the same time.

The first callers version of God at time sounded at first similar to the Indian philosophical/spiritual idea of Brahma. Interesting but impossible to reconcile with the God of the books (Bible, Koran, Torah).

I tend to agree with JT on the hang-up. I like to give callers the benefit of the doubt in my mind (and I imagine hosts do too) but he went on for quite a while and it's hard to imagine him listening rather than just picking right back up and talking past Jeff had he been given the opportunity.

"It'd be like two teams coming to a field to play soccer, and one of the teams declaring that they're not going to play by the rules - that they don't have to get the soccer ball into the opposing team's net to score points, and that there's no way for the other team to score any points against them."

As far as the guy that was hung up on, it sounded like he was just interested in giving a monologue consisting of nothing but assertion after assertion. It might have ended up a good conversation but since he didn't even bother to pause to see if you had any remarks until Russel and Jeff stopped him I doubt he wanted more than what I said above.

Yeah, I was waiting for you guys to step on that guy and tell him to focus on one point, but the course you took was probably better. The Gallopers drive me nuts because they just jump all over the place and I think Jeff has heard enough of them that he knew exactly where it was going (which was basically nowhere).

I delayed posting for a while because I'm not sure if my comments would be constructive but here goes. Also, I'm kind of concerned about people creeping into my own life (or Joseph's life) unawares. I know Joseph because I was the guy who told him to call. Yeah, his arguments are looney which is part of the reason I told him he should call. I knew him when he was a dormmate in college; so let us see if I can elucidate some matters.

1. Yes, he was a legitimate atheist as far as I could tell. I met him after his conversion but conversations with him at the time revealed he was some sort of nihilist.

2. Jeff was probably right to hang up. I was disappointed in Joseph's argument from the beginning. Joseph might've been convinced to argue his point constructively but it would've been a waste of time trying to get there. Needless to say, I was hoping for me.

3. His "gifts of prophecy" are laughable. This was my primary reason for wanting Joseph to call: his gift is a total joke and has been wrong in the past and he's not always certain if it's God or the devil talking to him. Had Russell gone through with his wish to ask Joseph to prophecy, we all might have gotten a real treat.

4. As for JT's sharpshooter thoughts. I too have wondered if any delightful logical fallacies are going on. My personal (totally unconfirmed) guess is that for every "hit," Joseph has a few dozen "misses".

Anyways, those are my two cents. I'll be happy to address any questions as long as it doesn't get too personal into Joseph's life.

Just a comment on the semantics of the term 'theist' ~ I have to say that I disagree with what Jeff and Russell were saying on this topic (Jeff made a comment to the effect that 'if someone believes that a totem pole is 'God', i can touch that totempole and i believe it exists, therefore one could call me a theist in relation to the totempole') Russell made a similar comment about Julius Caesar (if someone thinks Julius Caesar is 'God', i believe that Caesar existed, so i could be called a theist in relation to Caesar).....

To me, this kind of reasoning renders the term 'theist' completely meaningless. Here's an example to demonstrate:

There are people who believe that Jesus Christ existed AND believe he's 'God'

There are people who believe that Jesus Christ existed but DON'T believe he's 'God'

Given the reasoning that Jeff and Russell use, BOTH groups would be classified as being 'theists in relation to Jesus'......

But are those two groups the same? I don't think so. If the 'believing this thing is God' part is absent, it's only _confusing_ to label such a person a theist, imo.

And good luck trying to tell a Christian that you're a 'theist' regarding Jesus but DON'T BELIEVE he's God :)

@AxeGrrlYou will forgive me if I am wrong here; I have not had a chance to listen to the last episode.The line of argument you described is usually in response to a pantheistic god, or when someone redefines god to be the universe itself. The line of reasoning you used then leads to the question “why bother to call it god?”. Or in the case of the totem pole, if it has no supernatural powers and does not do anything but sit there, why would you call it a god?

So if the theist wants to move the goalposts and define something un-godlike as a god, that is where you go. If they want to be weird about it, then it is easier to just admit, “OK I believe in your god then, why should I bother to worship it?”.

@axegirlI started to write a response that contradicted your point, but as I wrote and thought, I understand what you're saying and have changed my mind. The only reason Jeff would consider himself a theist regarding the totem pole is because it obviously exists. But as soon as the assign any "godly" powers to it, he's no longer on board (nor would I). Same would go for Jesus. He might have existed, but no one considers it theism until he is assigned godliness of some sort. Thus at no point would you consider yourself a theist in either example.

I doubt he would disagree once it's put in such a way. I understand the point he was trying to make. I may believe something exists that you think of as a god. But it requires more evidence (that has never been provided) to go along with any magical or supernatural claims of said object or person.

Although a good episode it failed to address the infinity project's diametric opposition to the theory propounded by those who krytenise it's expenditure. I was dissapointed in this. If TAA believe they are a vanguard of specialism then can they at least try to deffenistrate their punctions in a more eventual manner? It was bordeline Wagnerism and should, as normal, be avoided, Thanks.

PLEASE NOTE: The Atheist Experience has moved to a new location, and this blog is now closed to comments. To participate in future discussions, please visit http://www.freethoughtblogs.com/axp.

This blog encourages believers who disagree with us to comment. However, anonymous comments are disallowed to weed out cowardly flamers who hide behind anonymity. Commenters will only be banned when they've demonstrated they're nothing more than trolls whose behavior is intentionally offensive to the blog's readership.

Email policy

All emails sent to the program at the tv[at]atheist-community[dot]org address become the property of the ACA, and the desire for a reply is assumed. Note that this reply could take the form of a public response on the show or here on the blog. In those cases, we will never include the correspondent's address, but will include names unless we deem it inappropriate. If you absolutely do not wish for us to address your email publicly, please include a note to that effect (like "private response only" or "not for publication" or "if you post this on the blog please don't use my name") somewhere in the letter.

Google Analytics script

Subscribe To

AE and Related Sites

PLEASE NOTE: The Atheist Experience has moved to a new location, and this blog is now closed to comments. To participate in future discussions, please visit http://www.freethoughtblogs.com/axp.The Atheist Experience is a weekly live call-in television show sponsored by the Atheist Community of Austin. This independently-run blog (not sponsored by the ACA) features contributions from current and former hosts and co-hosts of the show.